Sexual Customs in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Valentine's Day

The Siren by J. W. Waterhouse

When in Rome do as the Romans do. This is one of the famous sayings concerning Rome that evolved from a comment made by St. Ambrose to St. Augustine regarding differences in church practices. But what about differences in sexuality? How did Romans do it? Did their religion condemn sexuality?

Roman sexuality is an interesting phenomenon, not only because part of their beliefs may seem strange and bizarre to our tastes, yet also because they represent a crossroad or transition between an ancient civilization and our modern conception of a Judeo-Christian lifestyle and morality. In fact, we would find Roman ideas about sex at least somewhat more compatible with our belief system compared with the idiosyncratic lifestyle of the ancient Greeks.

Although the Romans heavily borrowed from Greek culture, literature and religion, even using the Greek language in their aristocratic elite circles, they shunned some of the sexual beliefs that came with them. The idea that the most revered form of love ought to be between two males, mostly an older man with a youth, was not the general consensus among the Romans.

It does not mean that homosexuality was not accepted or frowned upon; quite to the contrary, male prostitution was very common and a major source of tax revenue for the Roman treasury; it is even said that many of the emperors could not resist these temptations.

Yet it is important to note that Romans did not have our dichotomous notion of hetero- versus homosexual practices. They made another type of distinction, namely between the “penetrator” versus the “penetrated.” The latter was frowned upon because it implied passive or submissive sex, whereas the “penetrator” fit more closely with the aggressive masculine image. To the Romans, masculinity was a highly sought-after virtue, and as long as the male was on the giving, and not the receiving, end, his masculinity was salvaged.

Although virility was usually a positive characteristic and denoted manhood, it ought to be practiced in good measure. In fact, and this has a strange ring by today's standards of masculinity, if anyone practiced too much sex, it was seen as soft and effeminate.

In our world, we tend to believe that constant, persistent, and promiscuous lovers, like Don Juan or Casanova, are the emblem of masculine behavior, but Romans considered it a flaw because it showed a certain lack of restraint. If a Roman male had trouble controlling himself and his urgent needs, he lacked discipline, and consequently, he was seen as being led and swayed by his emotions; in other words, he was not a free man of reason but a mindless slave to his needs and passions.

When considering this, let us keep in mind that in Roman times, sex was not given as much importance as has been the case in our post-Victorian sex-obsessed society. Sex was regarded as an every-day necessity, such as food and drink. Therefore, in many cases, sexual acts may have been committed in plain daylight or within the view of servants. It is only much later, and the previously mentioned St. Augustine had a major say in such matters, that sex was seen as something dirty, shameful and sinful, that ought to be practiced - if at all - within the confines of holy matrimony and the darkly lit private bedroom.

In those times, Romans were still not as traumatized or guilt-ridden concerning sexual practices and sexually derived pleasure. Interestingly, marriage was not the only vehicle for sexual catharsis. Marriage was considered an unbinding license or contract between man and woman and was practiced mostly by the elite citizens - in some cases by imperial permission it may have been applied to certain outstanding soldiers - while the rest of the populace did not have the right to marry under Roman law. Plebeians, free men who were not citizens, had their own form of matrimony, which resembled our common-law marriages.

Often enough, love had little or nothing to do with matrimony. Marriages were undertaken between families to increase or improve wealth or status and had the purpose of procreation. The “disadvantage” or “inconvenience” of love, especially for the Roman male, was that it might negatively affect or interfere with rational decision-making.

A Roman had to keep his masculinity intact at all times, which meant that any kinds of affectionate displays in public would often harm his standing among his fellow Romans. No one was exempt from this fact, no matter what the standing or whatever the previous accomplishments. Even Marc Anthony, who was certainly not regarded a coward, had become an object of ridicule due to his unwavering love and devotion for Cleopatra.

A curious fact about adultery was that there were cases where it was permitted by Roman society. For example, slaves were seen as possession and property, and having sex with a slave was not equated with adultery. In a similar vein, sex with anyone from a lower status was not considered adultery, which conveniently included sex with prostitutes. As long as they were paid for the sexual act, it was not considered to be adulterous. Therefore, such behavior, unlike today, was not always hidden from the eyes of the wife since it did not carry the weight of betrayal or deception.

One must keep in mind that sex as such was an animal instinct, something that emanated from natural bodily functions, and hence, to the Romans, it did not create any kind of obligation or bond between two people. Sharing a meal with another person had much more value and commitment than having sex.

Nonetheless, there seems to be an unspoken rule that sex was not something to be discussed and talked about openly. That constitutes one of the main differences between the Greeks and the Romans. The former saw sex as a pleasurable art, whereas the latter may have seen it as a pleasure-giving act that, however, had to be controlled, kept to a minimum, and not be publicly exposed and commented upon.

Most of the more conservative elements crept up during the reign of the emperor Augustus. Although he brought peace and stability to the empire, it also meant that more conservative principles would be in place. To him, public decency came to the forefront and lewd behavior was strongly discouraged. However, some traditions continued on despite proposed conservative principles. One of them was the forerunner of what ought to become the most celebrated romantic days of the year, Valentine's Day. It started as rituals involving sacrifices to one of the gods of fertility called Lupercus.

In February, which was the month of purification for the Romans, young boys would randomly pick a girl's name from a jar of ballots. Whoever was chosen would become this youth's lover for a year. These traditions were indeed quite popular with the common people, and it is an early version of matchmaking for lonely singles. During the same festivities, a goat would be sacrificed, and the hinds were converted into whips with which the priests, and perhaps other males, would randomly inflict lashes on the willing women. That practice, painful as it may seem, was in fact quite welcomed by the female populace as it was considered to enhance their fertility.

When the emperor Claudius decided to outlaw marriages of soldiers, which he believed demoralized them and interfered with the efficacy of their military services, a priest by the name of Valentine decided to defy the decree and continued to secretly marry the young lovers. When this came to light, Valentine was sentenced to death.

During his prison time, he met a jailer's blind daughter and fell in love with her. As legend would have it that on the evening of his death sentence, he passed a note to his beloved which stated “from your Valentine” and the rest is history. This note-writing practice gained notoriety among the Romans, especially on February 14, so much so that it had to be somehow incorporated and later christianized by the Church.

Our society and our attitude towards sex have changed drastically over the centuries. Women today do not wear phallic symbols around their neck as a luck charm in honor of the god of marital fertility nor do we have temples with giant penis statues crowned with flowers.

We have abolished any forms of sex lottery during Valentine's and instead send inoffensive cards and give chocolate and roses to our romantic interest. Obviously, our ideas about sexuality - whether it involves adultery or sexual practices - are quite different from the customs in ancient Rome.

However, we cannot deny that there seems to be an invisible, unspoken link that connects us with the ancient past, especially when it comes to an empire that lasted for centuries and had conquered and influenced most of the world. In the end, as another saying goes, all roads lead back to Rome.

The Art of Eroticism: Using your sexiness to your advantage

It was various years ago when watching the musical Chicago in the movie theater that I was stunned with how it was sizzling with eroticism. However, it was not a matter of arousal on my part, but an intellectual or analytic appreciation of the art of eroticism in general.

What impressed me was how sexually suggestive gestures and movements, clothing and make-up all combined to create a “body” or work of art. I am not necessarily saying that Chicago is a particularly good movie, nor do I have a particular affinity or crush on the actresses of the movie, but I realized how cunningly some people manage their body to exude sexiness.

At the same time, I realized that it was indeed another form of acting or pretending. It creates a certain kind of elusive image in the mind of the spectator. In other words, our reaction to such an erotic spectacle is a playing on and with our senses to augment and intensify sex-appeal.

Let me give an example. A woman we might see in the streets or at work may not have any special sex appeal, but when she decides to put on her belly dancing costume, balance a sword on her head and move herself gracefully and in sensuous ways, we would never believe it was indeed the same person.

In the first instance, we see her as an ordinary person. She might be attractive, but she is not fully eroticized. Yet when she becomes “exotic” and synchronizes her body movements to Middle Eastern music and drums, when she manipulates and creates emotions and arousal, she becomes a veritable erotic piece of art.

That is where movie and music stars know how to capitalize. They turn their bodies into that sculpture of sizzling eroticism that gives them an almost otherworldly sense and character. And often, they know of the value of their assets and “insure” them for insane amounts of money.

The pathetic fallacy however on the spectator's part is to confuse the work of art with real life. One falls prey to the belief that a type-cast actor, for example, is indeed that fictitious person in real life. (Though sometimes actors do end up being like their characters, perhaps because they consciously choose roles that suit their personality. I cannot help but to think of Jack Nicholson always being himself in all of his movies!)

In a similar vein, no matter how sexy J. Lo or Salma Hayek may appear on TV or on the movie screen, at the end of the day they are not all that different from everyday people and underneath the glamor, show biz, make-up and millions of dollars, they actually lead - or try to lead - normal lives. Even they are not immune to bad hair days, for example, or their moments of un-sexiness, something that the press likes to prey upon and that occasionally makes the tabloid papers.

To us normal folks and mere mortals it would seem odd or unimaginable why any person in their right mind would ditch any of these actresses and stars, but once people look past the stardom and glamor, the person may not, for whatever reasons, be that appealing after all.

There is nonetheless a positive lesson for us all. We can, in fact, capitalize on this knowledge and use this art to our own advantage. We can learn to surprise our mate or our would-be mate by putting on a show of exotic dance moves or sexy clothing and style to create, albeit for a fleeting moment, a moment of eroticism in our own life.

God in the Flesh: Jesus, the Bringer of Love

The holy trinity has always been a somewhat startling concept for me. Does that mean that God is divided into three equal parts? If Jesus is God, then is God talking with himself whenever Jesus is in prayer? If Jesus is the Son of God does that mean that the Virgin Mary is not only his mother, but also God's spouse? Or is it all meant figuratively? If so, what's the point behind it all?

In fact, the German philosopher Hegel, considered a genius by some and a schizophrenic maniac by others, has come up with an answer that is both astounding and fascinating, whether you agree with him or not.

There is a common view that Jesus has died for our sufferings and with his death has given us forgiveness, acceptance, and eternal life. The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson draws out this point in excruciating detail and gets the message across. But how can the suffering and horrible death of the so-called Son of God be any kind of alleviation of sins? The ideology behind it seems to imply that we, all of humanity, are responsible for his death, that we actually killed Jesus, in equal measure as we are guilty before God because of Adam's transgression eons ago.

But Hegel gives a different account and does not harbor on the suffering part. He claims that Jesus is the “bringer of love” who comes at a crucial point of time. Before Jesus, there was Moses “the lawgiver,” and people were subject to rigorous rules and obligations and if they disobeyed they were confronted with the wrath of a jealous God.

Yet suddenly, Jesus of Nazareth appears on the earthly circus and tells us to forget about all the commandments and to follow only two rules: Love God and love each other. It seems a kind of truce or a deal for us humans. It replaces the harsh language of the stern father with the loving and kind father. It is an uplifting message and a life philosophy worth pursuing.

But who is this Jesus and with what authority does he speak? Hegel states that God of the Old Testament was always distant. He felt more and more alienated with humanity and did not understand those creatures of skin and blood. So He ventured to enter into the human realm Himself. In a similar vein “Death” in Meet Joe Black or the angel Damiel in Wings of Desire, God decided to become flesh.

This decision is of paramount importance. It is the Leader Himself appearing on the scene; He is not merely sending messengers or ambassadors or receiving indirect knowledge about how things are down there. He wanted to experience firsthand what it was like to be human. It was a way of fully incorporating and understanding humanity from the inside.

Apart from that, it had unspeakable symbolic and religious significance. It was the ushering of a new era, an era of love and reconciliation. God was ready to forgive all of humanity; He was even ready to give His own human life for the cause.

Why did He have to die? It was a necessity. Partly because people were still in law-obeying Moses mode, a kind of automatic and mindless rendering of rites and rituals in order to please the Almighty. The other reason is that by “dying,” God did actually open the way to the heavens and to the afterlife. It was an interaction between the divine and the human realm. He experienced humanity in full cycle: birth, suffering, and death. He was the perfect example of a human, the prototype if you will, hence rightfully the Son of Man.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is still a fascinating and refreshing concept proposed by the German philosopher. And in some ways it makes intuitive sense. It gives an explanation of the how and why and is not simply built on mere acceptance of rules and dogmas.